That's the title as I originally submitted it. The mods, in their infinite wisdom, changed it.
I think my title gave a better idea of what the article was about. The mods changed it to the article's own title. I do not believe my title was editorializing, I believe it was providing useful information.
<shrug> The mods know best. Well, they have the power, anyway.
Personally, I'm disappointed. I put some time into finding a title that I thought didn't editorialize, but did give better insight into what the article is about, helping people make a decision whether to click on it or not.
It's different when you've already got the article in front of you - no further clicks required.
Why? The submitter's description was much better at letting me know something about the subject of the link.
The author chose that title for her audience. We are not her audience. We do not know she is a school teacher. To us, "Give 100 Percent" conveys something entirely different than to her audience.
I do not like un-necessary editorializing of material. If there is no title, sure, make a relevant title, but if the content producer has decided to present her material in a specific manner, its her call.
I do not agree that we are not her audience. We wont be discussing the issue at hand otherwise, would we? and that was her intent I suppose: To stimulate a discussion about teaching methodology among us, who care.
Title should be: How to kill the drive to learn - give grades